crazyskillz07

lol

Mike_Like_Bike

SS bike???

icyclist 

>If you cropped an image from a 1D to the physical (virtual) demensions of the 1Ds the image would "look" magnified too.<

Yes - but given equal numbers of pixels with each camera, the 1Ds image would have less pixels than the camera with the smaller sensor. As for quality, it would be a wash between cameras, because the full frame camera would have a cleaner image, even as the smaller sensor camera would have more pixels.

Which is to say when it comes to pixels and sensors, it's a complicated subject.

The line to my bike/photo blog is below.

liquefied

Except now you could because ISO 6400 on a 5D mkII is probably better than the ISO 800 you used on the 10D.

rha600

This can go on and on, as I've seen it do many times on the photo forums. And no, the 1Ds would not have less pixels. I didn't explain myself correctly. I meant if you took a shot with the 1D and then the same shot, with the same lens witht he 1Ds, and then cropped the 1Ds image to the same exact pixel dimensions (so they'd be the same) and then viewed both at 100% they would both look the same as far as a "zoom" factor goes.

as far as how clean the image is, we're talking top of the line cameras, but the sensor with more pixels isn't always cleaner. It depends a lot on the processor but also a lot on the pixel size. Smaller pixels don't gather light we well as larger ones and are thus more prone to noise and color bleed.

HAHA like you said...it gets complicated and usually makes my head hurt.

here is my web site. The site itself is very basic and I use it as a learning tool so things are neither consistent or completed.

www.alloverphotos.com

adriano 

heres that lens.

umd

It's not a light issue it's depth of field. I tried shooting with a more conventional lens but because the subject is relatively far away compared to the crowd on the other side, the crowd was too much in focus and therefore distracting. The 1.8 allows the background to be more oof, and also because it let's more light in it focuses faster too. I've also uses that lens with my 1dmkIIn and it was a very nice combo.

markwebb

I had a photog prof in college that taught how to use a zoom lens: affix your prime lens onto your slr and then walk backwards and forwards until you get the shot you want.

Nothing in the zoom category of lenses comes close to a prime lens.

But I agree on SS/fixies. Great for little kids and tikes, pretty dumb for adults. It's a fad for those who wanna act cool and more evolved than those of us who use derailleurs.

rha600

I'll put my 70-200L up against 90% of the primes out there.

liquefied

True, when you want the DoF there's no substitute for a large aperture. Does it really focus faster than a 70-200L though? Usually lenses with big glass focus slowly - case in point, the 85 1.2 that takes a decade to go from infinity to MFD.

WSKB

Hmmm, I've been wanting this lens for a long time...

crazyskillz07

Ehhhh. I love my 70-200 2.8L but its not as sharp as my 85 1.8 prime.

umd

IIRC the 85 1.2 used to have AFD motor instead of an USM. It looks like the current ones are USM though. I don't know what you had, but the 200 1.8 was fast to focus not because of the motor per se, but because it let so much light in that it was easier for the body to find the focus quickly. The less light the harder it is to focus and the longer it takes.

Also one really nice feature of that lens was that you could set a focus preset and press a button on the lens and it would snap into focus. Some of the other big lenses had it too. I'm mixing up the lenses in my head though and can't remember offhand if that lens had the EF-M focusing or if it was a different one. That feature used the motor to do the focusing when you turned the focus ring instead of being a direct mechanical link. And the speed was adjustable. Of course none of this has anything to do with anything and not really relevant to a bike forum...

pinwheel

everything you say is wrong.

some lenses have very particular foreground and background qualities, others have hard to find characteristics like very good stray light control. The right lens for the job comes down to finding a lens with all the right qualities to handle the scene to be captured. Sometimes fixed or zoom is not really important against other factors.

I have used several zooms whose performance exceeds fixed lens counterparts in almost every way. I have used many fixed lenses which I considered to be nearly unusable for many demanding applications. I have some fixed lenses that collect less light that zooms in my lineup covering the same range. The complexity of lens design supersedes generalizations comparing fixed and zoom lenses.

walking back and forth on your feet with a fixed lens is not the same as changing focal length, either by changing lenses or zooming. If you are critical about composition, and composition is what makes a shot work, then you will notice that perspective is a very important factor and valuable one to have control over. There are also times when zooming with your feet will drop you to your death. single focal length shooters sacrifice a lot for their mildly improved mobility. the term "zooming with your feet" is just bad terminology.

sometimes, a beater fixie is just so right.

Drag

This is where you lost me, but I won't argue with you given you're so adamant about your high opinion of zooms. I will agree that zooms have come a long way though, but they're only tools as are bikes. Enjoy your gear.

tinrobot

Because you can't buy one.

There's no such thing as a fixed zoom lens. Either it's fixed or it zooms.

icyclist 

>here is my web site. The site itself is very basic and I use it as a learning tool so things are neither consistent or completed.

>www.alloverphotos.com<

I enjoyed your photos. (Some of mine are here.)

fauxto nick

Less gear talk more images.

logdrum

+1. The problem with Zooms is that they need more glass so you can zoom and in time, the glass go out of alignment. Also however good the glass, more lenses are never be gonna superior to the simpler arrangement of primes. In practice only good samples of wide zooms can outperform prime lenses and after a while they really need to be serviced. My 2.8 17-35 Nikkor was serviced when I went to Japan and I do not know if they actually changed the glass but that's when it got better than my primes. When I got this lens, I was also wiser and spent about 3 hours at B & H before I go it right and I think I tested about 7 lenses.

My wife actually takes more of the photos. I do the print, process and photoshop. Our kit is standard 3 bodies (now 4) and we usually have the tried and tested 80-200 2.8 journalistic zoom and the 2.8 17-35 and one lense that is low light prime (50, 85, or 105) or a telephoto prime. You really do not want to get a lense that has a minimum higher than 2.8.

You do that once and you just shoot till your camera body dies

rha600

HAHA and that is one of the 10% that I won't. also the 135L and the 200 f1.8 or f2.

merlinextraligh

Ok

Burrowing Owl, Canon 600mm F/4 L:



Burrowing Owl, Canon 600mm F/4 L with 2x tc, 1.4x tc stacked:

timmyquest

This thread doesn't work.

nitropowered

Although I've pretty much gotten out of photography, that was one lens I really wanted to have.

fauxto nick

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

icyclist 

>There's no such thing as a fixed zoom lens. Either it's fixed or it zooms.<

Not correct. A fixed lens is one that can't be removed from the camera. A fixed lens can be a zoom or a prime, but it can't be removed from the camera on which it sits.

Examples of photos made with a fixed zoom lens are below, from my previous BF posts: